OK well lets try to slightly shift the disscussion but keep the purpose. Reptiles are the common ancestor of modern birds. At one point wouldn't there be an animal with half wing half leg where neither would function properly

Had wings but was thought to not have been able to fly. And archaeopteryx has been shown to have more in common with the jurassic reptiles of it's time period than with modern birds.

Archaeopteryx could grow to about 0.5 metres (1.6 ft) in length. Despite its small size, broad wings, and ability to fly.

Wikipedia defiantly just said it could fly. Having more in common with reptiles than birds? Hmmmmmmmm... I'll ponder that one for you.

Read the full article before you begin making assumptions: (respectfully said)

The full quote should be:

"Despite its small size, broad wings, and ability to fly, Archaeopteryx has more in common with small theropod dinosaurs than it does with modern birds. In particular, it shares the following features with the deinonychosaurs (dromaeosaurs and troodontids): jaws with sharp teeth, three fingers with claws, a long bony tail, hyperextensible second toes ("killing claw"), feathers (which also suggest homeothermy), and various skeletal features.

The features above make Archaeopteryx the first clear candidate for a transitional fossil between dinosaurs and birds. Thus, Archaeopteryx plays an important role not only in the study of the origin of birds but in the study of dinosaurs."

And:

"As in the wings of modern birds, the flight feathers of Archaeopteryx were highly asymmetrical and the tail feathers were rather broad. This implies that the wings and tail were used for lift generation. However, it is unclear whether Archaeopteryx was simply a glider or capable of flapping flight. The lack of a bony breastbone suggests that Archaeopteryx was not a very strong flier, but flight muscles might have attached to the thick, boomerang-shaped wishbone, the platelike coracoids, or perhaps to a cartilaginous sternum. The sideways orientation of the glenoid (shoulder) joint between scapula, coracoid and humerus—instead of the dorsally angled arrangement found in modern birds—suggests that Archaeopteryx was unable to lift its wings above its back, a requirement for the upstroke found in modern flapping flight. Thus, it seems likely that Archaeopteryx was indeed unable to use flapping flight as modern birds do, but it may well have utilized a downstroke-only flap-assisted gliding technique."

And then:

"Considering the current knowledge of flight-related morphology, a scenario outlined by El?anowski in 2002, namely that Archaeopteryx used its wings mainly to escape predators by glides punctuated with shallow downstrokes to reach successively higher perches, and alternatively to cover longer distances by (mainly) gliding down from cliffs or treetops, appears quite reasonable.[21]"

OK well lets try to slightly shift the disscussion but keep the purpose. Reptiles are the common ancestor of modern birds. At one point wouldn't there be an animal with half wing half leg where neither would function properly

Had wings but was thought to not have been able to fly. And archaeopteryx has been shown to have more in common with the jurassic reptiles of it's time period than with modern birds.

Archaeopteryx could grow to about 0.5 metres (1.6 ft) in length. Despite its small size, broad wings, and ability to fly.

Wikipedia defiantly just said it could fly. Having more in common with reptiles than birds? Hmmmmmmmm... I'll ponder that one for you.

Read the full article before you begin making assumptions: (respectfully said)

The full quote should be:

"Despite its small size, broad wings, and ability to fly, Archaeopteryx has more in common with small theropod dinosaurs than it does with modern birds. In particular, it shares the following features with the deinonychosaurs (dromaeosaurs and troodontids): jaws with sharp teeth, three fingers with claws, a long bony tail, hyperextensible second toes ("killing claw"), feathers (which also suggest homeothermy), and various skeletal features.

The features above make Archaeopteryx the first clear candidate for a transitional fossil between dinosaurs and birds. Thus, Archaeopteryx plays an important role not only in the study of the origin of birds but in the study of dinosaurs."

And:

"As in the wings of modern birds, the flight feathers of Archaeopteryx were highly asymmetrical and the tail feathers were rather broad. This implies that the wings and tail were used for lift generation. However, it is unclear whether Archaeopteryx was simply a glider or capable of flapping flight. The lack of a bony breastbone suggests that Archaeopteryx was not a very strong flier, but flight muscles might have attached to the thick, boomerang-shaped wishbone, the platelike coracoids, or perhaps to a cartilaginous sternum. The sideways orientation of the glenoid (shoulder) joint between scapula, coracoid and humerus—instead of the dorsally angled arrangement found in modern birds—suggests that Archaeopteryx was unable to lift its wings above its back, a requirement for the upstroke found in modern flapping flight. Thus, it seems likely that Archaeopteryx was indeed unable to use flapping flight as modern birds do, but it may well have utilized a downstroke-only flap-assisted gliding technique."

And then:

"Considering the current knowledge of flight-related morphology, a scenario outlined by El?anowski in 2002, namely that Archaeopteryx used its wings mainly to escape predators by glides punctuated with shallow downstrokes to reach successively higher perches, and alternatively to cover longer distances by (mainly) gliding down from cliffs or treetops, appears quite reasonable.[21]"

So it's just a species of bird that didn't completely be able to fly?

Logged

When the power of love, overcomes the love of power, the world will know peace. – Jimi Hendrix

OK well lets try to slightly shift the disscussion but keep the purpose. Reptiles are the common ancestor of modern birds. At one point wouldn't there be an animal with half wing half leg where neither would fiction properly

Who did the first person to speak French talk to? Was there half a Frenchman?

-

Language has what to do with the working body parts of animals?

Follow the analogy. How could the French language possibly have come into existence? The first person to speak the language would have had no one to talk to, nicht wahr? Or, using your argument, there would have been half a Frenchman, with half his grammar.

At one point wouldn't there be an animal with half wing half leg where neither would function properly

I see, Irish already posted something about the Archeopterix, so I don´t have to.

We have to look at the "where neither would function properly"-part. Granted, a species with half wing-half legs won´t be able to fly like a bird or run really fast with one pair of legs being half wings. But, and that is important, it doesn´t need to. It´s a trade-off. Even if they can´t run fast anymore, they can glide now much better than any competitors that are still geared to running or jumping between trees. Being able to glide from tree to tree is a high improvement compared to having to run on the ground to reach a tree, that is not in jumping distance. And since they don´t run very fast or good, they´ll avoid open planes anyway, so they don´t have to compete with predators, that can run fast. Have a look at these little critters: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Flying_squirrel (unfortunately the english wiki-entry is a bit short, but you get the idea)

But that's precisely it. It wasn't yet classifiable as a bird. It was still a reptile with bird characteristics. It's also noted that other species of reptiles (dinosaurs, whatever) had primitive and advanced feathers. Archeaopteryx was still a reptile but represents another step in the evolution towards birds. Its' primitive wings only enabled it to glide or crudely get some sort of lift, but what makes that great is the generations afterwards built upon this crude wing and eventually true flight was possible.

You know you could have said all that without the insult there. No need for an Aggressive atheist.

Well, when someone makes a mistake that large and they are arrogant about flaunting that mistake they get my attention. What it tells me is that the person making that mistake makes it usually for very specific reasons -- none of them good;

1. You are taking a cheap shot and don't think much of anyone else's time or ability to address your cheap shot. You'll continue those cheap shots till you have bored others into silence and then you will claim a 'victory'. The Muslim Alfady does this quite a bit.

2. You really are that godsoaked and you would not listen anyway ... you only move the goalposts when you are found out. Dogmatic to the end.

Additionally, eyes are most useful for fast moving and complex creatures that aren't in caves or in oceans below 1,000m; 90% of the volume of the water on the planet. Early life was single celled, and likely in the oceans as the solar radiation would sterilize the surface. So, I think in your case we have a winner ...

3. You lack an interest in looking for yourself; you are not inquisitive.

Now, as for your charge against me, you started this thread with neither respect nor courtesy.

If you want to gain courtesy from anyone, then you can cut out the cheap shots and actually *look* before posting such nonsense. Do something that shows you are both humble and thoughtful or expect ridicule for such bad behavior.

What can you do that is positive? That will show that you are thoughtful and reasonably humble? First, you can start by retracting your whine about the mean old atheist calling you out on your own rudeness. Second, you can publicly state that you were mistaken and that you will make an effort not to do that in the future -- that you will at a minimum check your sources and not misquote people who have done nothing but improve your life and the lives of billions.

Show me some of that much claimed Christian morality.

« Last Edit: October 11, 2008, 06:52:35 PM by Hermes »

Logged

Smart people believe weird things because they are skilled at defending beliefs they arrived at for non-smart reasons. --Michael Shermer

The history of religion is a long attempt to reconcile old custom with new reason, to find a sound theory for an absurd practice. --Sir James George Frazer

There is not necessarily a need for "millions" of examples as you said. There can be variations among each species of life.

For instance look at humans. We are one single species with countless variations. Height, weight, hair color, freckles, eye color, personalities galore, hair texture, skin color, the list goes on and on. The basic premise is that within each species there can be small (eye color) to rather large variations (skin color) that would not constitute a new species.

There are many examples of feathers on reptiles or animals that developed wing-like appendages in that time frame. I just gave the one, Archeaopteryx, because it is the most widely known and easiest to recognize.

Several different species all evolved feathers separately of each other, not one species doing all this change by itself.

Edited Yet Again: OK, I confess, I do mock you. But only because you seem to imply evolution is "faith-based". Faith is a belief in something for which there is no evidence, for, if there is evidence, there is no need for faith. In other words, faith is wishful thinking stated in the most politically correct terms. Evolution is a scientific theory. Now get this through your head - Science is a self-correcting process. It is performed by humans who make mistakes, therefore science makes mistakes. But, because it actively supports questioning and peer review by independent third parties, errors are ultimately discovered and corrected. Thus we now have an 88% cure rate for breast cancer among other things you fekking maroon.

Now, on a Saturday night, after having dealt with the idioteligencia all week at work, you will forgive me for tossing a few sticks of dynamite into the fish barrel to relieve the stress. On Sunday morning I will come to my senses and agree that Irish's and Asmoday's sensible approach to debate is really the way to go.

Asking a question that can be answered in 3 seconds of searching show massive disingenuity. There's an entire fracking wiki page dedicated to the evolution of the eye:http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Evolution_of_the_eyeTheists wonder why atheists discard their opinions out of hand so often... this is why.

Logged

When I was a kid, I used to pray every night for a new bike. Then I realised, the Lord doesn't work that way. So I just stole one and asked Him to forgive me. - Emo Philips

There should be eagle fossils with no eyes, followed by eagle fossils with partial eyes ... etc.

No there shouldn't be eagle fossils without eyes. You are making the assumption that the eagle evolved before the eye and then once the eagle developed the eye evolved within it. Is this correct? If I'm mis-stating you I apologize.

The eagle evolved with eyes from it's ancestors, reptiles. Just as reptiles evolved with eyes in place from their ancestors, amphibians. Amphibians developed with their eyes from their ancestors, fish... and then so on.

Eyes first developed as very simple eye spots on very simple creatures, small multi-celled organisms. The eye and animals evolved side-by-side not in turns as you are suggesting. With every small little step up the chain in animals the eye grew slightly more and more complex as well.

So then how did eyes evolve? That is at the very crux of Darwins dilemna. The eye is too complex to have simply evolved over time and given anyone an 'advantage' with a non-functioning partially developed eye.

You yourself concede that a 'partial eye' is hardly better than no eye at all.

Any ability to sense light is an advantage. The eye, as many scientists believe, started out as a simple eye spot in lower organisms, small multi-celled creatures. All they could do with this spot is sense light. Eventually the spot became concave which allowed for detection of direction of the light. Then a covering for the eye-spot which became the cornea and lens. Then the original eye-spot became the retina and on and on.

But we are not talking about some sub-species of blob at the bottom of the ocean in the mirky dark. We are talking about birds and mammals on the earth. SHOW ME where they developed 'eyes' as part of a natural selection, survival of the fittest evolution.

All I am asking is SHOW ME the partially blind in the historical fossil record. There should be MILLIONS of them

Where are they ... or do we take in on 'faith' that they must exist ???

There are fossils of each stage of eye development. Each stage of development did not have to take place, stage-by-stage in each individual animal specie that has eyes. We have simple bacteria today that have eye-spots. We have mollusks and other simple creatures with concave and covered eye-spots. There are pinhole eyes. There are eyes that can sense a picture but are poor in focusing or color. Even our own brethren the apes, have great eyes but are not fully capable of seeing certain colors. *Edit* Even humans do not have perfect eyes. Color-blindness is a sex linked trait. Some people need to wear corrective lenses for farsightedness and nearsightedness. Then there are other conditions of the eye that lead to blindness.

The fossil record will not show eagles with no eyes, and then partial eyes, and then full eyes because they simply do not exist. However, we can see clearly each stage of the development of the eye within animals alive today or in fossils of animals that did exist

If any of this was vague or you simply want more I'd be happy to give you a full description. I shortened many things to make the message shorter. I'm more than happy to go in to further detail and won't give you any misgivings on your stand

1 The Darwin Religionist claims that everything evolves (ie the eye) so then there were first beings with no eyes, then partial eyes, then real eyes, then superior eyes. The eyes 'evolved' over time. The 'better' the eye, the more likely the beast would be 'naturally selected'.1

Now you tell me that there are no 'partially blind' owls or eagles (partially evolved) They either have eyes or they do not ... is that it ?? This is not classic darwinism. So I fear that you've introduced heretical beliefs into the 'faith' of your fathers ...

2 There should be eagle fossils with no eyes, followed by eagle fossils with partial eyes ... etc2

What you presume here is, that a species like the eagle pops up without eyes and then the eyes evolves over time. That itself is ridiculous and it shows, that you a) don´t understand the theory at all or b) don´t want to understand it to make up contradicting arguments.As you see in the quote, I marked statement 1 and 2. Statement 1 is true, but statement 2 is false. You assume in 2, that Evolution creates a perfectly developed eagle without eyes, that slowly develops eyes after. If that was true, we would find fossils of eagles without eyes. But as you know aswell, your claim is false. The eagle does not pop up without eyes. If that would happen other species with eyes (it does not matter if it would be half-blind eyes or fully devoloped eyes) would wipe out the blind eagle pretty fast. (exactly as I said in my first post.).

You´re trying to build an argument by making a false picture of evolution. You´re trying to give the impression that evolution creates the species "eagle" first and the eyes of the eagle after the rest of it. It doesn´t work that way.

Quote

So then how did eyes evolve? That is at the very crux of Darwins dilemna. The eye is too complex to have simply evolved over time and given anyone an 'advantage' with a non-functioning partially developed eye.

Again, your twisting the theory and ignore everything that you don´t like. The eye is not too complex to evolve. As it is shown in the examples given before, all the less-devoloped-but-still-functional eyes are there for you to see. You just don´t want to see. You´re right, that a non-functioning partially devoloped eye is no advantage. But already a really really simple photoreceptor molecule (that is far far away from a fully developed eye), that lets you know, if you swim away or towards the light, gives a single cell organisms a huge advantage over organisms without that.

Quote

You yourself concede that a 'partial eye' is hardly better than no eye at all.

Show me, where I said that. I said, that an organism with no eye doesn´t stand a chance against a competitor with an eye (if the eye is the only difference). You imply here, that "partial eye" means "non-functioning". Look above for the example with the single cell organism.

Quote

Are you now suggesting a 'new faith' (unobserved) where all animals all developed 'eyes' at the same time ?

That one is far harder to 'swallow' than the belief that a Creator 'created' these beings fully formed.

Wasn´t it your own idea, that a species evolves without eyes and that the eyes evolve after everything else is done? (see "the eagles without eyes"-part). But anyway, I´m not saying all kinds of animals developed eyes at the same time (that was your idea alone), but, and that is important, evolution is like an arms race of superpowers, so if one starts, all other must adapt or perish. If one species in an environment advances, it puts pressure on the other species, too (I am not saying, species can decide to evolve!). More evolved predators leed to more evolved prey.

Quote

But we are not talking about some sub-species of blob at the bottom of the ocean in the mirky dark. We are talking about birds and mammals on the earth. SHOW ME where they developed 'eyes' as part of a natural selection, survival of the fittest evolution.

Darwin acknowledged that the eye is far to complex for this to have occured by happenstance.

(as your 'faith' alleges)

I´m not talking about sub-species blob either. If you think of highly adapted fish as "sub-species blob", then that´s your problem, not mine. And as I said above, all the evidence was allready shown to you, but you decided not to look. Since your own idea of evolution is false, as pointed out, you wont find evidence for that. But the theory of evolution by Darwin has enough evidence, which was already shown.

And Darwin did not acknowledge that the eye is to complex. Read the whole paragraph written by Darwin, not just the little line of text that creationists are quote mining to death. The eye would only be too complex for evolution, if you could not change it´s configuration without destroying it´s functionalty. That means, only if the fully developed mammalian eye was the only configuration for a working eye, then an eye would be to complex for evolution.

I find it amazing that people will start a thread like this, with only an opininion based loosely on what they think they know.

Instead of saying "what do you think of this quote"...how bout you go read up and form an educated opinion...then come to the boards, list the quote and your opinion at the same time, and you'll be amazed when you get a more polite and thorough evaluation of your post from the members.

The OP is playing some kind of silly gotcha game - waiting for someone with less than evidence to slip up, when the case is already closed in the scientific community. Wouldnt you get more satisfaction out of being right for the right reasons, than winning a less than factual argument by being right for the wrong reasons?

If you are actually intersted in science and proof, one of thunderf00t's videos on youtube explains the phenomenon of our eyes improving. There are like 30 videos and I don't remember which one it was...but if you're interested in truth rather than bickering, here:

I find it amazing that people will start a thread like this, with only an opininion based loosely on what they think they know.

Instead of saying "what do you think of this quote"...how bout you go read up and form an educated opinion...then come to the boards, list the quote and your opinion at the same time, and you'll be amazed when you get a more polite and thorough evaluation of your post from the members.

The OP is playing some kind of silly gotcha game - waiting for someone with less than evidence to slip up, when the case is already closed in the scientific community. Wouldnt you get more satisfaction out of being right for the right reasons, than winning a less than factual argument by being right for the wrong reasons?

Well, it's even worse than that. The whole premise of this thread is based on a misquote of something written about 150 years ago. This is several levels of wrong. I'd be interested if a retraction of the OP will be coming, or if lack of ethics will rule and the terminal errors in the OP will be ignored or defended. I've seen Christian evangelical ethics, and I'm betting one of the later two options.

« Last Edit: October 11, 2008, 09:55:03 PM by Hermes »

Logged

Smart people believe weird things because they are skilled at defending beliefs they arrived at for non-smart reasons. --Michael Shermer

The history of religion is a long attempt to reconcile old custom with new reason, to find a sound theory for an absurd practice. --Sir James George Frazer

OK well lets try to slightly shift the disscussion but keep the purpose. Reptiles are the common ancestor of modern birds. At one point wouldn't there be an animal with half wing half leg where neither would fiction properly

Who did the first person to speak French talk to? Was there half a Frenchman?

-

Language has what to do with the working body parts of animals?

Follow the analogy. How could the French language possibly have come into existence? The first person to speak the language would have had no one to talk to, nicht wahr? Or, using your argument, there would have been half a Frenchman, with half his grammar.

-

That dosen't follow my example. Mine would have to be a man already with a language and them making up french. Unfortuanatly he would still know his previous language he would have grow in knowledge not change.

Logged

When the power of love, overcomes the love of power, the world will know peace. – Jimi Hendrix

OK well lets try to slightly shift the disscussion but keep the purpose. Reptiles are the common ancestor of modern birds. At one point wouldn't there be an animal with half wing half leg where neither would fiction properly

Who did the first person to speak French talk to? Was there half a Frenchman?

-

Language has what to do with the working body parts of animals?

Follow the analogy. How could the French language possibly have come into existence? The first person to speak the language would have had no one to talk to, nicht wahr? Or, using your argument, there would have been half a Frenchman, with half his grammar.

-

That dosen't follow my example. Mine would have to be a man already with a language and them making up french. Unfortuanatly he would still know his previous language he would have grow in knowledge not change.

The analogy is meant to point out the "very" gradual nature of evolution. At no point in time did an individual pop up and start speaking French. Obviously, there was no first person to speak French! Likewise, there was no instantaneous transition from a reptile to a bird. There was no "half wing, half leg" as you're worried about. At any given point in time, if you looked around France, most everyone in a specific geographic region understood each other. But separate them in time by several thousand years and you will find they probably can no longer converse. Likewise, at any given point in time, if you looked around, you would see some reptilian looking creature indistinguishable from his neighbors. One of those creatures is ultimately the ancestor of the modern bird, but you would never tell by looking at him. Only as you proceed down the time line over several million years will the accumulated genetic changes become noticeable.

That's as explicit as I can make it. After this I'm pissing in the wind.

OK well lets try to slightly shift the disscussion but keep the purpose. Reptiles are the common ancestor of modern birds. At one point wouldn't there be an animal with half wing half leg where neither would fiction properly

You really should try to educate yourself. The answer to most of your questions are out there. You can choose to be lazy and ignorant, or you can take 5 minutes and use google.

Quote

The other major question about avian origins concerns the origin of avian flight. Two hypotheses have dominated the discussions. One proposes that flight and flapping of the forelimbs evolved in the context of running, this has been dubbed the cursorial or "ground up" hypothesis.

The other is the arboreal or "trees down" hypothesis, in which birds descend from arboreal parachuters and gliders, similar to modern tree squirrels and flying squirrels.

An interesting piece of evidence here concerns the hind limbs. When originally discovered, the hind limbs of the Berlin specimen bore large feathers, leading some scientists to propose that Archaeopteryx used the hind limbs in flight. This kind of adaptation is seen in modern gliding lizards such as Draco and Ptychozoon, but wouldn't be expected if primitive birds were relying on their legs to become airborne; large hindlimb feathers would hinder a cursor.

You may very well choose not to believe evolution is valid in the face of overwhelming evidence to the contrary no matter what anyone says. If you see different breeds of dogs...you understand that they all have ancestory as wolves, and humans performed selection, to give us the breeds we have today. That is called micro-evolution. Macro-evolution is basically micro evolution over a greater expanse of time. It doesnt make sense to me that people can understand one but not the other.

Quote

Natural selection is the machine that drives evolution. This mechanism causes those organisms that are "abnormal" to survive an environmental change, making them the "new normal." Over time, according to the Theory of Evolution, this can cause an organism to change into a totally different form of life. Some evidence of natural selection has been seen in nature, but not to an extent that would change a species in any meaningful way. Every genetic mutation that science has observed changing the form or function of an organism has resulted in handicap or death. It does, however, mean that an ecosystem is vulnerable to rapid change, since organisms that cannot adapt will usually die.

I find it amazing that people will start a thread like this, with only an opininion based loosely on what they think they know.

Instead of saying "what do you think of this quote"...how bout you go read up and form an educated opinion...then come to the boards, list the quote and your opinion at the same time, and you'll be amazed when you get a more polite and thorough evaluation of your post from the members.

The OP is playing some kind of silly gotcha game - waiting for someone with less than evidence to slip up, when the case is already closed in the scientific community. Wouldnt you get more satisfaction out of being right for the right reasons, than winning a less than factual argument by being right for the wrong reasons?

If you are actually intersted in science and proof, one of thunderf00t's videos on youtube explains the phenomenon of our eyes improving. There are like 30 videos and I don't remember which one it was...but if you're interested in truth rather than bickering, here:

Oh but Ping this was the point all along. To see how taking an argument that has already been proven wrong and see how far the Atheists community explodes on it. I thought it would be fun to see and I was correct!

Logged

When the power of love, overcomes the love of power, the world will know peace. – Jimi Hendrix

Oh but Ping this was the point all along. To see how taking an argument that has already been proven wrong and see how far the Atheists community explodes on it. I thought it would be fun to see and I was correct!

Any chance that you're going to retract your dreck, or are you a typical liar for Christ?

Logged

Smart people believe weird things because they are skilled at defending beliefs they arrived at for non-smart reasons. --Michael Shermer

The history of religion is a long attempt to reconcile old custom with new reason, to find a sound theory for an absurd practice. --Sir James George Frazer

Oh but Ping this was the point all along. To see how taking an argument that has already been proven wrong and see how far the Atheists community explodes on it. I thought it would be fun to see and I was correct!

So, in other words you made yourself look like a complete air-brain for your total lack of understanding of the mechanisms of genetics and evolution. On that note, you did well, congratulations.